1 / 24

Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks

Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks. Daniel Cutting, 28th April 2006 Advanced Networks Research Group. Outline. Motivation and problem Implicit groups Implicit group messaging (IGM) P2P model Evaluation. Motivation.

wanda
Télécharger la présentation

Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implicit group messaging inpeer-to-peer networks Daniel Cutting, 28th April 2006 Advanced Networks Research Group

  2. Outline. • Motivation and problem • Implicit groups • Implicit group messaging (IGM) • P2P model • Evaluation

  3. Motivation. • It’s now very easy to publish content on the Internet: blogs, podcasts, forums, iPhoto “photocasting”, … • More and more publishers of niche content • Social websites like Flickr, YouTube, MySpace, etc. are gateways for connecting publishers and consumers • Similar capability would also be desirable in P2P • Collaboration and sharing without central authority • No reliance on dedicated infrastructure • No upfront costs, requirements

  4. Problem. • As more new niches are created, consumers need to search/filter more to find and collate varied content • How can we connect many publishers and consumers? • The publisher already knows the intended audience • Can often describe the audience in terms of interests • Does not know the names of individual audience members • So, address them as an implicit group

  5. Implicit groups. • Explicit groups • Members named • Pre-defined by publisher or consumers need to join • Wolfgang, Julie • Implicit groups • Members described • Publisher defines “on the fly”, consumers don’t need to join • Soccer & Brazil

  6. Implicit group messaging. • CAST messages from any source to any implicit group at any time in a P2P network • Each peer described byattributes (capabilities, interests, services, …), e.g. “Soccer”, “Brazil” • Implicit groups are specified as logical expressions of attributes, e.g. “(Soccer OR Football) AND Brazil” • System delivers messages from sources to all peers matching target expressions

  7. P2P model. • A fully distributed, structured overlay network • Peers maintain a logical Cartesian surface (like CAN) • Each peer owns part of the surface and knows neighbours • Peers store data hashed to their part of the surface • Peers geometrically ROUTE to locations by passing from neighbour to neighbour • Quadtree-based surface addressing • Smoothly combine two major techniques for efficient CAST delivery to groups of any size

  8. P2P model. • Attribute partitioning:“attribute  peer” index for small groups • Summary hashing:for reaching BIG groups • Hybrid CAST algorithm: reactive multicast algorithm combining the above

  9. Quadtree-based addressing. • Surfaces can be any dimensionality d • An address is a string of digits of base 2d • Map from an address to the surface using a quadtree decomposition • Quadrants called extents

  10. Attribute partitioning. • A distributed index from each attribute to all peers • Indices are stored at rendezvous points (RPs) on the surface by hashing the attribute to an address

  11. Attribute partitioning (registration). • Every peer registers at each of its attributes RPs • Every registration includes IP address and all attributes

  12. Attribute partitioning (CASTing). • To CAST, select one term from target • Route CAST to its RP • RP finds all matches and unicasts to each

  13. Attribute partitioning. • Simple, works well for small groups and rare attributes • Fast: just one overlay route followed by unicasts • Fair: each peer responsible for similar number of attributes • BUT common attribute  lots of registrations at one RP • Heavy registration load on some unlucky peers • ALSO big groups  many identical unicasts required • Heavy link stress around RPs • SO, in these cases share the load with your peers!

  14. Summary hashing. • Spreads registration and delivery load over many peers • In addition to attribute registrations, each peer stores a back-pointer and a summary of their attributes at one other location on the surface • Location of summary encodes its attributes • Given a target expression, any peer can calculate all possible locations of matching summaries (and thus find pointers to all group members) • Summaries distributed over surface; a few at each peer

  15. Summary hashing (registration). • Each peer creates a Bloom Filter • {Soccer,Brazil}01101 01100 | 01001 • Treat bits as an address • 01101(0)  122 (2D) • Store summary at that address on the surface Benoit {Argentina, Soccer} Wolfgang {Soccer, Brazil} Kim {Brazil} Julie {Soccer, Argentina, Brazil}

  16. Summary hashing (CASTing). • Can find all summaries matching a CAST by calculating all possible extents where they must be stored • Convert CAST to Bloom Filter, replace 0s with wildcards • Soccer & Brazil  {Soccer, Brazil}  *11*1 01100 | 01001 • Any peer with both attributes must have (at least) the 2nd, 3rd and 5th bits set in their summary address • The wildcards may match 1s or 0s depending on what other attributes the peer has

  17. Summary hashing (CASTing). • Find extents with 2nd, 3rd and 5th bits are set • {Soccer,Brazil} *11*1(*)= { 122, 123, 132, 133, 322, 323, 332, 333 }

  18. Summary hashing (CASTing). • Start anywhere and intersect unvisited extents with target expression • Cluster remainder and forward towards each one until none remain • When summaries are found, unicast to peers • Called Directed Amortised Routing (DAR)

  19. IGM on P2P summary. • Peers store their summary on the surface and register at the RP for each of their attributes • If an RP receives too many registrations for a common attribute, it simply drops them • To CAST, a source peer picks any term from target expression and tries a Partition CAST (through an RP) • If RP doesn’t know all matching members (because it’s a common attribute) or the group is too large to unicast to each one, it resorts to a DAR

  20. Evaluation. • 2,000 peer OMNeT++/INET simulation of campus-scale physical networks, 10 attributes per peer (Zipf) • 8,000 random CASTs of various sizes (0 to ~900 members) • Comparison to a Centralised server model • Metrics • Delay penalty • Peer stress (traffic and storage)

  21. Evaluation (delay penalty). • Ratio of Average Delay (RAD) and Ratio Maximum Delay (RMD) compared to Centralised model • 80% of CASTs have average delay less than 6 times Centralised model • 95% havemaximum delayless than 6 timesCentralised

  22. Evaluation (peer stress). • Order of magnitude fewer maximum packets handled by any one peer over the Centralised serverHigher average stresssince more peers involvedin delivering CASTs • Even spread ofregistrations over peers

  23. Conclusion • Implicit groups are a useful way of addressing a group when you know what they have in common but not who they are • IGM is also applicable to other applications • Software updates to those who need them • Distributed search engines • P2P implicit group messaging is fast and efficient • Does not unfairly stress any peers or network links • Can deliver to arbitrary implicit groups with large size variation

  24. Questions?

More Related